Rescuing Romans from Roman Catholic Epologists: A Response to CAI's Jacob Michael

by Martin Foord*

A friend of mine who has converted from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism decided that in his fourth year of full time theological study he would write a thesis that was a critique of Bob Sungenis' book Not by Faith Alone. At first sight the book looked impressive and imposing. However, as he started looking at the arguments he found that it contained so many errors of fact (e.g. basic repeated parsing errors), exegesis, and logic, ad hominem arguments, and historical omissions and misrepresentations that he wondered whether it actually warranted answering.

I start with this story because one such article that bears the same marks as Bob Sungenis' book is Jacob Michael's "Rescuing Romans from the Reformers." There are lashings of OT quotations, statements about what any first century Jew would have believed, and words strewn about like: "inter textual echoes". But on a closer evaluation Mr. Michael's arguments are very disappointing.

There are two issues I wish to raise from Mr. Michael's article. The first is his unpleasant misrepresentation of the Protestant position. This is truly remarkable. He claims to be rescuing Romans from the reformers, but in fact we find none of the reformers quoted or referred to. Indeed what we find is the construction of a very shaky reformation straw man.

One of the continual frustrations I personally have had when listening to the converts from "anti-Catholicism" like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics is the persistent misrepresentation of the reformers and reformation theology. One only has to listen to the first tape of Scott Hahn's series on sola scriptura. In it he purports to explicate the best possible defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. But it is quite clear he had no idea what it actually was.

The second point I wish to make is that Mr Michael's way of reading Scripture is uncontrolled by the grammar and logic of the text. We note at the outset the influences on Mr. Michael's interpretation of Romans:

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Don Garlington, and Richard B. Hayes [sic] for serving as my first "tour guides" through the epistles of St. Paul, and for showing to me the hidden gold mines that exist in an Old Testament-based reading of St. Paul.

What is interesting is that Garlington and Hays are both Protestants; if they have such insight into reading Romans aright then why have they not converted to Rome? Moreover Garlington has imbibed much of the novel and controversial "New Perspective" on Paul. We find this influence present in Mr. Michael's arguments. Mr. Michael understands the first century Jewish problem to be national righteousness, which he then assumes to be the problem Paul deals with in Romans 2. But first century Judaism is a good deal more complicated than this, as the vast array of current literature on the subject testifies.

Then there is the influence of Richard Hays and his "inter textual echoes." Much of what Hays says about inter textual echoes is helpful and exciting. However, Mr. Michael shows little sense of how to control the OT echoes he hears in the NT. This leads to some incredible conclusions, which we will see below. In the name of being sensitive to the OT, sensitivity is lost on the NT text.

Now of course the NT is in complete harmony with the OT. But one must remember that the OT presents the gospel in shadow form whereas the NT presents the gospel in its reality (Heb. 8:5; 10:1; Col. 2:17). Hence one must be careful not to impose the OT shadows over the NT realities so as to turn the NT realities into the OT shadows. Indeed one of my problems with Roman Catholic exegetical methodology is just this. Roman Catholic interpretation regularly imposes OT shadows (like the priesthood) over the NT realities. My own experience of listening to Scott Hahn expound the Bible is a perfect example of this. He purports to use "typology" (to justify Mariology and the Mass for example) but in actual fact uses an uncontrolled allegory that supports his (I would say rather arbitrary) Roman Catholic conclusions. Roman Catholicism has many traits of OT religion.

How will I approach Mr. Michael's article? It will not be dealt with point by point. I have not the time for such a procedure, nor would most readers have the patience! Rather I will examine Mr. Michael's claims concerning the four Protestant doctrines he raises in the book of Romans. So without further ado, let us examine Mr. Michael's thesis.

1. There is No One Righteous

The first Romans passage Mr. Michael analyses is Rom. 3:10-18 and its relevance to the topic of total depravity. His opening comments are:

These verses are twisted by Reformers to support their doctrine that Man is totally depraved, incapable and uninterested in seeking after God.

Notice the ad hominem language: "twisted by Reformers". But one looks in vain to find any quotations from the Reformers themselves, so as to see whether they have been faithfully represented. Mr. Michael then proceeds to show that when the list of OT quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah in Rom. 3:10-18, are placed in context, they do not prove that "Man is totally depraved, incapable and uninterested in seeking after God." Let us look at Mr. Michael's conclusions:

But what about the Reformers' premise? Is [sic] is decidedly destroyed when one considers that in almost every Psalm quoted, there is some mention of "the just," "the righteous," "them that are right in heart," and so on. How can the Psalmist be saying that there is literally no one who is righteous, who seeks after God, when he then goes on to use phrases like, "But as for the just, they shall give glory to thy name: and the upright shall dwell with thy countenance," and "For the Lord is in the just generation?" The Reformer must concede that he has utterly missed the point of St. Paul's argument, and that he has done what St. Paul would never do: wrenched Old Testament texts out of context.

Again no quotations from the reformers themselves, just wild accusations that they have "wrenched Old Testament texts out of context." But what Mr. Michael may not realize is that: [1] the reformers were indeed aware of the context of the OT quotations; [2] Mr. Michael appears to have "wrenched" Rom. 3:10-18 from its context. Let us examine both points in reverse order.

Firstly, Rom. 3:10-18 fits into a larger argument that spans from Rom. 1:18 - 3:20. Mr. Michael quotes freely from chapter 2, but this is only part of Paul's argument, which began in 1:18. Paul's argument does not start with the issue of Jewish boundary markers and national righteous (so the "New Perspective") but the fact of God's wrath upon sinful humans (1:18 "For the wrath of God is being revealed against all ungodliness …"). In Rom. 3:10-18 Paul is concluding the argument about sin he began in 1:18. What is most devastating to Mr. Michael's reading of this passage is that he ignores the very next verses that follow! Look at what Paul's conclusion is:

Rom 3:19: Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For "no human being will be justified in his sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. (NRSV, emphasis added)

Notice Paul's clear conclusion: "so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (emphasis added). In other words Paul uses 3:10-18 to show that all humanity is sinful. From 1:18-3:20 Paul's argument is that all people without exception (the "whole world"), both Jews and Gentiles, are under God's law and have broken it. The Gentiles have the "works of the law" written on their hearts (2:14-15) and are thus responsible to God (1:32). Yet the Jews were under the much more clear expression of God's law in the OT Torah. Hence they also are responsible for their sin before God (Rom. 2:1-24). Paul's argument is this: whether one is a Jew or a Gentile, all are under sin and culpable before God. Paul's point is seen a few verses later:

Rom 3:23: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; (NRSV, emphasis added).

Let us now look at the next problem with Mr. Michael's conclusion. What of the observation that the Psalms and Isaiah passages quoted in 3:10-18 make mention of the "righteous" alongside side of statements of universal sin like:

Rom 3:11 there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God. (NRSV) [quote from Psalm 14:1]

Let me do something that Mr. Michael has not done: quote a Reformer. John Calvin in his early commentary on Romans did indeed notice the context of the OT quotations and drew conclusions that were sensitive to the NT interpretation of them:

And that these testimonies [the OT quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah in Rom. 3:10-18] may not seem to any one to have been unfitly produced, let us consider each of them in connection with the passages from which they have been taken. David says in Psalm 14:1, that there was such perverseness in men, that God, when looking on them all in their different conditions, could not find a righteous man, no, not one. It then follows, that this evil pervaded mankind universally; for nothing is hid from the sight of God. He speaks indeed at the end of the Psalm of the redemption of Israel: but we shall presently show how men become holy, and how far they are exempt from this condition. In the other Psalms he speaks of the treachery of his enemies, while he was exhibiting in himself and in his descendants a type of the kingdom of Christ: hence we have in his adversaries the representatives of all those, who being alienated from Christ, are not led by his Spirit. Isaiah expressly mentions Israel; and therefore his charge applies with still greater force against the Gentiles. What, then? There is no doubt but that the character of men is described in those words, in order that we may see what man is when left to himself; for Scripture testifies that all men are in this state, who are not regenerated by the grace of God. The condition of the saints would be nothing better, were not this depravity corrected in them: and that they may still remember that they differ nothing from others by nature, they do find in the relics of their flesh (by which they are always encompassed) the seeds of those evils, which would constantly produce fruits, were they not prevented by being mortified; and for this mortification they are indebted to God’s mercy and not to their own nature. We may add, that though all the vices here enumerated are not found conspicuously in every individual, yet they may be justly and truly ascribed to human nature, as we have already observed on Romans 1:26. (Emphasis added)

Calvin argues that the statements found in the catena of OT texts are descriptions of what all people are like before God has intervened in their life. It is true that the OT texts, like Psalm 14 mention the "righteous." Calvin's point is that the "righteous" in these OT passages are those whom God has had mercy upon in the context of the universal sinfulness of all humans. These OT texts were a reminder to the faithful Jew of what they once were, except for God's mercy upon them.

To read the OT passages in any other way leads to an obscuring of the actual words in them. For example, Psalm 14:1 "there no-one who seeks God". What else could those words mean but that there is no one that seeks God? The "righteous" Jew was once dead in their sin but God in mercy made them alive spiritually.

Calvin wrote commentaries on almost all of the books in the Bible; he soaked himself in Scripture. Moreover he was, of course, one of the best Hebraists in his day. In Geneva he lectured primarily on the OT. He was a fallible human but to accuse him (a reformer) of "wrenching" the OT out of its context is gratuitous to say the least. Anyway, if Mr. Michael wants clear proof that one cannot turn to God in their sinful state, it is clearly taught elsewhere in Romans. For example:

Rom 8:7: For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law--indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (NRSV, emphasis added)

Let us move on to the next issue Mr. Michael raises.

2. By Faith Alone

Mr. Michael turns next to the topic of justification by faith alone and the locus classicus Rom. 3:28-4:8 (I don't know why he doesn't include 3:21-27 which are critical to Paul's argument). He presents the "Reformers" position:

As proof of this [that works do not affect our standing before God according to the reformers], inevitably Romans 3 and 4 will be cited, with special emphasis on the case of Abraham and David, who are said to have had righteousness "reputed," and sin not "imputed." These are legal terms, so goes the argument, and so justification is something that is credited to our "account", externally, though we ourselves remain essentially impure in our soul.

Again Mr. Michael does not quote the reformers, and again he conveys a caricature of their position. So, "repute" and "impute" are not legal terms. The Hebrew word for "repute" / "impute" (chashab) is actually taken from an accounting context. It is "justification" that is the legal term.

That Paul's use of "justification" was forensic is now beyond doubt linguistically. Romans is enough to prove that. In 8:33-34 the verb "to justify" (dikaioo) is the antonym of the verb "to condemn" (katakrino). Furthermore in Romans 5:16 and 18 the nouns for "justification" (dikaioma and dikaiosis) are antonyms of the noun "condemnation" (katakrima). So whatever "justification" / "justify" means, it must be the opposite of "condemnation" / "condemn". The "justification" language of Paul most likely comes from the OT Jewish legal setting (Deut. 25:1; 2 Sam. 15:4; 1 Kings 8:31-32; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; Psalm 132:3; Prov. 17:15). Both "justification" and "condemnation" (and their verb cognates) are forensic terms in that they are the declaration a judge makes upon a person. Hence "to condemn" was to pronounce or declare one guilty, and "to justify" (tzadaq) was to pronounce or declare one not guilty. The great law court scene that Paul had in mind was, of course, the last judgment (Rom. 2:13). Indeed Paul's doctrine of justification is that the end time declaration of God in Christ on judgment day is now thrown into the present for the believer. In other words the believer knows in advance what God's verdict will be.

As a side issue, which we do not have time to go into, there are three meanings to the verb "to justify" (dikaioo) in the NT. What is disturbing for the Roman Catholic is that none of the three meanings concur with the classic Roman Catholic rendering "to make righteous by a conferral of righteousness."

But let us return to Mr. Michael's argument. He says:

Now then, what about the Reformer's use of this passage [Rom. 4:3 in particular] to prove that Man is justified apart from works, in a forensic, declarative manner? Once again, he is forced to admit a bit of misuse of these Old Testament texts, for we read:

"By faith he that is called Abraham obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing whither he went." (Heb. 11:8)

"And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. So Abram went out as the Lord had commanded him, and Lot went with him: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran." (Gen. 12:1-4)

The issue of chronology which played so well into St. Paul's hands is the same issue which confounds and frustrates the Reformer. If, as the Reformer claims, St. Paul is citing from Genesis 15:6 to show when Abraham was first "saved" by God, then he must answer the fact that Genesis 15 takes place many, many years after Genesis 12, in which account Abram obeys God and sets out on a journey to an unknown land. The inspired commentary in Hebrews informs us that this was, in fact, an act of faith and obedience on the part of Abram. Given that faith and obedience are the two key ingredients in the work of salvation, how can the Reformer posit that Abraham was not justified until Genesis 15:6, when clearly, he had faith in God and obeyed in Genesis 12?

The answer to this last sentence is, "Jacob the reformers do say that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6!" Again, Mr. Michael provides no quotations from any reformer, and again he misrepresents their position. Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Edwards, and many others argued that Abraham was justified before Gen. 15:6!

Calvin made much of the fact that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 against Rome to show that works are excluded even after one has begun the Christian life (see Institutes 3.11.14 and 3.14.11)! (One could only wish that many of the Romish epologists had read Calvin on justification in Institutes 3.11-18 because their well-worn arguments have been refuted long ago). Abram was justified, at least by Gen. 12:1 (because he had faith then according to Heb. 11:8), and yet in Gen. 15:6 we find that his faith was what "counted" for righteousness. What does this mean?

Quite simply Gen. 15:6 is not a statement about Abram's initial justification. It is a statement about what kept Abram in a justified state (or righteousness). Paul deploys Gen. 15:6 to show that faith is the key element that God "counts" (or takes into account) in establishing one's righteousness (or righteous state). Faith itself is not the "righteousness"; the words cannot be construed that way (note the prepositional phrase eis dikaiosunen "for righteousness" or "aimed at righteousness"). Faith alone is the instrument that brings one into the justified state, and faith alone is the instrument that maintains one in the justified state (Phil. 3:8-9; Rom. 11:20; Col. 1:23).

Indeed Paul proves justification by faith alone through using another OT verse that does not speak of initial justification but the ongoing maintenance of one's justified state: Hab. 2:4, "the righteous will live by faith." Heb. 10:37-39 shows us that Hab. 2:4 is to be interpreted, not "the righteous by faith, will live", but that "the righteous, will live by faith" (then it launches into the magnificent 'by faith' chapter: Heb. 11). In other words faith instrumentally (note the "by") maintains one's "righteous" or justified state before God. Therefore, Paul uses Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17 to show that a believer's faith from first to last maintains one's righteousness before God:

Rom 1:17: For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith." (NRSV)

And Paul also uses Hab. 2:4 in Gal. 3:11 to prove justification by faith alone:

Gal 3:11: Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for "The one who is righteous will live by faith." (NRSV)

It's quite simple really. Mr. Michael says,

The issue of chronology [in Rom. 4:1-8] which played so well into St. Paul's hands is the same issue which confounds and frustrates the Reformer.

In actual fact it is the reverse. Mr. Michael's observation that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 devastates the Roman Catholic position. Abram had been justified at least since Gen. 12:1 (the Bible doesn't tell us exactly when), and had therefore brought forth many good works since then. But these still counted for nothing when it came to his justified or righteous state before God, because years later in Gen. 15:6 God still "counted" him for righteousness by faith and not "works". Notice it is not "works of the law" here because the Jewish Torah had not yet been given to Israel. According to Paul Abram's "works" played no part in his righteous state before God:

Rom 4:3: For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as [for] righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as [for] righteousness. (NRSV)

If works were included in Abram's (or anyone's) justification then Christ's death would not be sufficient (Gal. 2:21; Gal. 5:4). Abram's good works were the effect of his justified status before God not the cause.

3. Eternally Secure

Mr. Michael then turns to Rom. 8:31-39 to address the issue of the eternal security of the believer. He presents the Protestant case:

This set of verses is often interpreted to mean that nothing we do, no sin that we commit, no matter how great, could separate us from the love of God.

Again, no Reformer is quoted, no Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, or Vermigli. And again, this is nothing other than a prostitution of the reformers' teaching. One gets very tired of hearing this perpetual misrepresentation about the Protestant position on sin in the life of the believer.

Calvin (for example) shows that he would never endorse what Mr. Michael has presented as the Protestant position. When discussing the very verses Mr. Michael addresses he then notes that the true believer must also keep in mind the warnings of the NT:

The apostle speaks far otherwise: “I am surely convinced that neither angels, nor powers, nor principalities, nor death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to come…will separate us from the love by which the Lord embraces us in Christ” [Romans 8:38-39]. They [the Romanists] try to escape with a trifling solution, prating that the apostle had his assurance from a special revelation. But they are held too tightly to escape. For there he is discussing those benefits which come to all believers in common from faith, not those things which he exclusively experiences. Now the same apostle, in another place, puts us in fear by speaking of our weakmindedness and inconstancy: “Let him who stands well,” Paul says, “take heed lest he fall” [1 Corinthians 10:12]. It is true; but not such a fear as to put us to confusion, but such that we may learn to humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand, as Peter explains it [1 Peter 5:6]. (Institutes 3.2.40, our emphasis).

Indeed when commenting on 1 Cor. 10:22 Calvin argues that the serious sin of idolatry in the Christian life will bring about ruin:

He [Paul] warns them how dangerous a thing it is to provoke God [in idolatry]—because no one can do this but to his own ruin. Among men the chance of war, as they speak, is doubtful, but to contend with God is nothing short of voluntarily courting destruction. Accordingly, if we fear to have God as an enemy, let us shudder at the thought of framing excuses for manifest sins, that is, whatever stand opposed to his word. Let us, also, shudder at the thought of calling in question those things that he has himself pronounced upon — for this is nothing less than to rise up against heaven after the manner of the giants. (Genesis 11:4.)

Maybe Mr. Michael doesn't realize that the reformers taught that God "who began a good work in you will bring it to completion" (Phil. 1:6) but also that the way God does this is by not letting the believer fall into apostasy. Serious sin in the life of the "believer" should cause them to question whether they have truly had the experience of salvation. In other words, serious sin will separate us from the love of God, but the true believer will be spared from this. That is why believers are called upon to examine their lives in the NT to see if their faith is genuine:

2 Cor 13:5: Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?-unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test! (NRSV)

Yet, again, Mr. Michael has misrepresented the reformers and presented us with a straw man. Therefore, much of what he goes on to say about Rom. 8:31-39 is irrelevant. But we must move on to his last point.

4. The Arbitrary Deity

Mr. Michael finally turns to Rom. 9:17-20 and says this:

The above passage is a favorite prooftext for Calvinist Reformers to support their view that God is arbitrary in His sovereign choice of who will and who will not be saved, and of who will and who will not be hardened.

Here Mr. Michael argues that "Calvinist Reformers" believe that God is "arbitrary." Yet again (sigh), there are no references from the reformers themselves, and yet again (sigh) this is a radical misunderstanding of their position. The Reformers would never have said that God is "arbitrary" in his sovereignty; it is a gross distortion. They never argued that God's nature was random. God's sovereignty may appear random to us as finite humans, but God does everything according to his infinite wisdom. If he did not, he would cease to be God. God's wisdom means his ways are not irrational, capricious, or arbitrary. God's reason in electing some for salvation is not revealed to us in Scripture, except that it is not found in the believer. Let us now address two issues that arise from Mr. Michael's comments.

i. A Prior Issue: God's Transcendence

We begin with a personal problem Mr. Michael once had with Rom. 9:17-20:

Failure to do these things [miss the inter textual echoes] almost always leads, especially in the case of Romans 9, to an understanding of St. Paul that is diametrically opposed to his intended meaning.

The above passage [Romans 9:11-13] is a favorite prooftext for Calvinist Reformers to support their view that God is arbitrary in His sovereign choice of who will and who will not be saved, and of who will and who will not be hardened. […]

This line of reasoning frustrated me to no end in years past, for while the plain meaning of the text seemed clear, this depiction of God simply didn't seem to fit in with what I knew to be true from Scripture: that God is just, that God is "rich in mercy" (Eph. 2:4), that God is "slow to anger" (Ex. 34:6), and that God "desires all men to be saved." (1 Tim. 2:4) I sought high and low for an answer to the question of how a just and merciful God could damn a soul to Hell for not repenting, when all the while the only way the soul could repent was if God empowered him to do so, but time and time again, I found myself running into the brick wall of St. Paul's seemingly cop-out reponse: "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Emphasis added).

One gets the impression here that Mr. Michael believes the "plain meaning" of Rom. 9 seems "diametrically opposed" to Paul's intended meaning. The red lights begin to flash when hints like this appear. According to Mr. Michael, it is only when those OT "echoes" are heard, that we can discover the intended meaning of the NT text. True, understanding OT allusions in their contexts does shed great light on a NT passage. Too often the full context of an OT citation is not taken into account. But surely Paul's words and arguments that surround his OT citations and echoes play some part in understanding what he was doing with them. Hence the plain reading (i.e. Paul's words at least) is going to be a crucial indicator to the meaning of the passage. But Mr. Michael believes that once we hear the OT echoes, Romans 9 has a reading that is very different to the "plain meaning". This is dangerous stuff indeed.

But it appears that the "plain meaning" of the text is not the real issue that worries Mr. Michael, there is something more basic. It is not hermeneutical (one of biblical interpretation) but theological. Mr. Michael says: "this depiction of God simply didn't seem to fit in with what I knew to be true from Scripture." The key phrase is "seem to fit in." But how does Mr. Michael know what should "seem to fit in" with Scripture concerning God's nature? Let me elucidate.

What Mr. Michael may not be aware of is the reformers' (and early fathers') understanding of the transcendence of God. To them the infinite God was well beyond human understanding. As Augustine mused, one cannot pour the ocean into a cup, and so we cannot pour all of God's knowledge into our puny finite sized minds. Hence there will be teaching about God that appears contradictory (and maybe even arbitrary) to us but in reality it is not so to God. If God is beyond our understanding then who are we as finite beings to predict what the infinite God should be like? If we could understand God, we'd be God. Who are we to demand that what one part of Scripture says, should "fit in" according to our finite perspective, with another part of Scripture?

Just think how hard it is to predict and understand the behavior of another human being. How much more difficult (indeed impossible) it is to predict the nature and ways of the almighty God (Rom. 11:33-36). God is not some mathematical formula that frail humans can forecast (Rom. 11:20ff.)! Therefore we must accept what God says in one part of his word no matter how foreign it seems to other parts of Scripture. And we must not presume to know what a passage should mean, but the let grammatical linguistic meaning decide.

One important Biblical theme that bamboozles us finite humans is the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility. For example, how is it that God can be sovereign over all things (Eph. 1:11) and yet humans remain significantly responsible for their actions (2 Cor. 5:10)? All attempts at logically harmonizing these seemingly opposing notions are destined to distort the biblical balance on the subject. The Bible nowhere says that people go to hell without being completely responsible for it. Now I cannot understand how this coheres with God's sovereign purposes so that nothing escapes his will (for if it did there could be no guaranteed outcome in God's plans). Thus we must maintain what the bible says even if it appears illogical to us at times.

Christians, like me, regularly upset the Biblical balance on this subject. Some of us so emphasize God's sovereignty that people are seen to be robots deterministically doing things they cannot but do. Mr. Michael may well have experienced a form of Christianity that made this mistake. If so, I feel sorry for him, because it is a cruel reductionism of the truth. Others of us so emphasize human responsibility that God ends up being controlled by human decisions. But divine sovereignty and human responsibility do not fit neatly and symmetrically together in our frail minds. How could they? The finite cannot contain the infinite.

The Biblical balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is seen very clearly in Phil. 2:12-13:

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (NRSV)

Here the believer is urged to actively "work out" (not work for!) their salvation. Why? It is because in the believer's active responsible work, God is sovereignly working in them ("for is it God who is at work in you"). How can 100% my own work be 100% God's own work simultaneously? It is not 20% God and 80% man (or some other combination) but 100% of both. This is beyond understanding but must be delicately held in balance.

Therefore, one must keep both divine sovereignty and human responsibility alongside of each other in a way that the Bible does. Unbelievers are completely responsible for their plight before God. God could not judge them if they weren't! But, believers are saved wholly by God's intervening grace. These two conclusions do not have a symmetric relationship, but both are true. [Because this is such a vital subject, let me recommend a helpful book that sheds further light on the subject by Don Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981). It examines the issues in a very penetrating manner.] There are many other doctrines that defy human understanding in the Bible (like original sin's relationship to human responsibility, how Christ can be both 100% God and 100% human, the Trinity etc.). Our aim should be to speak where God's word speaks, and be silent where God's word is silent. We must not demand what we think the Bible should say.

ii. The Misconstrual of Romans 9:10-13

It is Mr. Michael's reading of Romans 9:10-13 that is the most astonishing of all. We watch someone funnel their own meaning into the words on a page and ignore what is grammatically and linguistically there. All his talk about "inter textual echoes" appears to be license to ignore what the NT text itself says.

Mr. Michael starts with the basic mistake that Paul is arguing with "Judaizers" in Romans 9. He thus thinks that in the opening 5 verses Paul,

tries desperately to make his fellow Jews understand how similar their situation is to the events surrounding the Israelites in the Exodus, and as he pleads with them to repent while there is still time.

This is strange. Paul pleads with his "fellow Jews" to repent? The problem of course is that Mr. Michael has smuggled the idea of the "Judaizers" as Paul's audience into the argument. It is hard to know what Mr. Michael means by "Judaizers." In Galatians the "Judaizers" appear to be heretics and false teachers. But where is the evidence in Romans that Paul is writing to "Judaizers"? He explicitly tells us that his letter was to the Christians in Rome (1:7-14). It is true that in this group there were both Jews (7:1) and Gentiles (11:13). But the people Paul is writing to are believers such that he can say:

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world. (NRSV)

Hardly a group of heretical "Judaizers" who need to repent! It is true that Paul has been debating with an imaginary interlocutor (chs 6-7; 9-11). But there is no evidence that he is writing to heretical "Judaizers". Mr. Michael's hypothesis is an argument from silence, and unfortunately, he uses it much in his interpretation of the passage.

Rather than to a group of "Judaizers" Paul says this to the Roman Christians:

Rom 9:1: I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit- 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NRSV)

Paul here weeps over the unbelief of his fellow Jews who have rejected Jesus. Then he raises the issue he is going to discuss:

Rom 9:6: It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7 and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." (NRSV)

In these verses Paul deals with the issue of Jewish unbelief. If Israel was truly God's people, why have the vast majority of them rejected Jesus? Has God's OT word of promise about Israel as God's chosen people failed? Paul's aim in Romans 9 is to show that, "It is not as though the word of God [about Israel] had failed." He proceeds to argue that God's true OT chosen people were not all those who biologically descended from Abraham (Rom. vv. 6-8). Rather there was a remnant of true believers within national Israel that constituted the true chosen people (cf. Rom. 11:1-6). And God himself chose this remnant. This can be seen in the election of Jacob instead of Esau:

Rom 9:11-13: (NRA) Even before they [Jacob or Esau] had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she [Rebecca] was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." As it is written, "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau."

It is here where we go further into Mr. Michael's questionable method of reading Scripture. He says of the above passage:

What about that phrase, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated?" Many Reformers skim right over this explicit reference to the Old Testament, which forces them to do something St. Paul never does: prooftext. 

Again, no reformers quoted, just more throwing stones with the "prooftext" accusation. Here is how Mr Michael attempts to interpret 9:13:

This citation, oddly enough, is not from Genesis, and does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather, to the nations which descended from those two men. This, then, is the passage that St. Paul utilizes:

"I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, But have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert. But if Edom shall say: We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed: thus saith the Lord of hosts: They shall build up, and I will throw down: and they shall be called the borders of wickedness, and the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever." (Mal. 1:2-4)

In this passage, God speaks of how he opposes the proud attitudes and works of Edom, which is the nation that descended from Esau. They do not receive the Lord's correction, for when He punishes them, they only determine all the more to overcome Him, saying, "We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed." Once again, St. Paul shows how God deals with those who are prideful and who boast in their own works, who build up their kingdoms and cities by their own strength, instead of relying on God.

Truly amazing! What Paul actually says ("Jacob I loved") is lost amidst Mr. Michael's speculations. The issue of God's love for Israel and not Edom is what Paul draws attention to in Malachi. Granted, Edom is in rebellion against God. But that is an outcome of something prior: God's love in electing Jacob, the individual. The election of the individual had certain consequences for the nation. We see this clearly in Deuteronomy:

Deut 7:7 (NRA): It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you-for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Emphasis added).

Why were Israel redeemed in the Exodus according to these verses? Because God was faithful to prior promises he made to Israel's patriarchs. This is the point. God's love is seen in the unconditional election of Jacob and hence Israel. Now of course God's love is not seen only in election. God's love is supremely seen in Christ's death on the cross (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:10). But when understood against the OT background Paul's point is that God in love has elected a certain people.

The reason why Paul raises God's sovereign election of Jacob is so that he can answer the question we saw he raises at the start of the chapter: has God's promise to Israel failed (v. 6)? That is, how could the majority of God's chosen people, Israel, reject Christ? These verses are not immediately concerned with Mr. Michael's construal: "St. Paul shows how God deals with those who are prideful and who boast in their own works, who build up their kingdoms and cities by their own strength, instead of relying on God."

We then move on to some more sleight of hand:

But there is more to this prophecy:

"To you, O priests, that despise my name, and have said: Wherein have we despised thy name? You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: Wherein have we polluted thee? In that you say: The table of the Lord is contemptible. If you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? offer it to thy prince, if he will be pleased with it, or if he will regard thy face, saith the Lord of hosts. And now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you, (for by your hand hath this been done,) if by any means he will receive your faces, saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Mal. 1:7-11)

St. Paul is saying very many things when he cites from the opening verses of this chapter, none of which are lost on his Jewish readers. In addition to the message that God opposes the proud and boastful, there is also the reminder that, at the time of this prophecy, God was also opposing Israel, and the priests in particular. There is a call to repentance ("now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you"), and a prophecy that, one day, it will be the Gentiles who offer pure sacrifices to the Lord. All of these things are fraught with meaning for the Jews to whom St. Paul is writing. They have become proud, they have opposed God by murdering His Messiah, their priests were the ones leading the opposition against Jesus, and now, they need to repent, for the time has come, and now the Gentiles are being welcomed into the Covenant. This is, in essence, St. Paul's message: you, O Israel, have become like the Edomites you so despise.

Paul's message in Rom. 9:10-13 has become, according to Mr. Michael: "you, O Israel, have become like the Edomites you so despise." This is an incredible interpretation. Mr. Michael has completely lost his moorings with the Romans passage. Again the letter of Romans was not written to "O Israel" the political entity addressed in Malachi; it was written to believers in Rome among whom there were both Gentiles and Jews.

Let us return to the question Paul is attempting to answer: why did the majority of God's chosen people the Jews, reject Jesus? Paul is building his answer on the fact of God's sovereign election. Elect Israel were not the physical descendants of Abraham. But Mr. Michael brings something in from left field. He picks some verses from Malachi (unconnected to Paul's point) and transmutes the following verses:

Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." As it is written, "I have love Jacob, but I have hated Esau." (Rom. 9:11-13, emphasis added)

into,

They [the Jews to whom Paul was writing] have become proud, they have opposed God by murdering His Messiah, their priests were the ones leading the opposition against Jesus, and now, they need to repent, for the time has come, and now the Gentiles are being welcomed into the Covenant.

Very, very weird indeed! I am at a loss to understand how Mr. Michael can think that these verses are a chastisement to the Jews at Rome. These verses are an explanation not a reprimand. They explain "God's purpose of election." Mr. Michael bypasses the words actually in the passage.

We must continue:

But what are we to make of [the] words, "Esau I have hated?" Doesn't the Scripture say that "God is love?" How can a God who is, in His very essence, love, say that He hates anyone? The trouble here is that we don't understand God's love, or His hate, and we can only interpret these words through our own weak, fleshly experiences. God, in fact, loves Edom just as He loves Israel, and it is because of His love that He opposes them.

Now Mr. Michael has actually reversed what Paul's words mean when he says: "God, in fact, loves Edom just as He loves Israel" (emphasis added). The words in Malachi and Romans do not say this! They say: "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated" (emphasis added). What sort of sophistry is this? Moreover, Mr. Michael's statement is against what Paul says elsewhere in Romans itself. For example, in 3:1-4 and 11:28 the Apostle mentions the benefits of being a chosen Jew as opposed to a Gentile.

The easy answer to the phrase, "Esau I hated" is that it is a Semitic idiom (i.e. a piece of Jewish slang). To "hate" doesn't mean literally to hate. It is used to express a great divide between two people when they are compared. We see Jesus using this Semitic expression in Luke 14:26:

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."

Jesus here does not mean that a Christian is to literally "hate" their spouse or family. This would contradict what the NT says elsewhere (e.g. Eph. 5:25; 6:1-4). Rather, Jesus' point is that adherence to him must completely overshadow adherence to one's family. Here is the comparison between Jesus (on one hand), and one's family members (on the other) that allows Jesus to use the Semitic idiom.

Thus, instead of understanding the words Paul has actually written, Mr. Michael has roved off into Malachi and without control has chosen themes from the book alien to Paul's purpose. These he then funnels into the text of Romans. Imagine what would happen if we read Mr. Michael's articles this way? Why we could turn him into a Protestant!

But Mr. Michael's uncontrolled use of the OT continues unabated. Let us read on:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Rom. 9:14-16)

St. Paul again anticipates the argument of his opponents. If God is showing mercy to the other nations, yet He promised His blessings to Israel and they are in danger of being destroyed, then isn't God being unjust? St. Paul's response, which he makes by referring to Exodus and to Moses again, is somewhat complex, but it is truly brilliant:

"And the Lord said to Moses: This word also, which thou hast spoken, will I do; for thou hast found grace before me, and thee I have known by name. And he said: Shew me thy glory. He answered: I will shew thee all good, and I will proclaim in the name of the Lord before thee: and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me. And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me, and live. And again he said: Behold there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my righthand till I pass: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see." (Ex. 33:17-23)

What is the context of this story, in which Moses is allowed to behold the glory of God? It occurs right after Israel's idolatry with the Golden Calf. St. Paul has not left behind his firstborn/secondborn motif, for in this example, is it Moses, the younger brother, who is shown God's favor, and not Aaron, the eldest brother. Why does God pass over Aaron and show His glory to Moses instead? Any good Jewish reader will know immediately that this story follows the story of the Golden Calf, and will remember that it was Aaron, the firstborn son, who led the people in their sin. It was Aaron who gathered the gold from the people and fashioned the Golden Calf, and it was he who organized the abominable liturgy of the Golden Calf, with all of its sacrifices, dancing, and sexual orgies. Thus, it is not to older, stronger, more powerful Aaron that God shows His glory, but to the younger, holier, more humble Moses.

Mr. Michael rightly sees the echo of Ex. 33:19 ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") in Rom. 9:14-16. But crucial to his construal of Rom. 9:14-16 is this: "Any good Jewish reader will know immediately that this story follows the story of the Golden Calf." Granted, the Golden Calf incident is chronologically before Ex. 33:19. But the narrative has moved on from the Golden Calf episode and is addressing another issue: God's decision not to go with Israel to Canaan because they are a "stiff-necked people" (33:3). Israel as a "stiff-necked people" is seen in the Golden Calf incident, but the direct issue in Exodus 33 is not the Golden Calf event itself.

Mr. Michael then (incredibly) tells us that God shows his glory to Moses (as the younger) instead of Aaron (the firstborn) because Moses is "younger, holier, more humble". Again all I can say is that this is sheer fancy. There is no comparison in the text of Exodus 33 between Moses and Aaron. Indeed Aaron does not request to see God's glory, as does Moses. So why would God appear to Moses rather than Aaron? Furthermore, there is nothing mentioned in the chapter about Aaron being "older, stronger, [and] more powerful" than Moses, nor is there any mention of Moses being "younger, holier, [and] more humble" than Aaron. Aaron may just happen to be the older brother of Moses. But this fact has nothing to do with what Exodus 33 is about. Indeed, Aaron's name is not once mentioned in the chapter. Mr. Michael is deploying again the spurious argument from silence. It is another example of his funneling alien ideas into a biblical passage where they are absent.

Now to the very words themselves that Paul (and Ex. 33:19) actually uses:

Rom 9:15 (NRA): For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

The meaning couldn't be clearer. God will go with Israel, the "stiff-necked people" not because she deserves it, but because God is merciful and slow to anger. He chooses to have mercy on whomever he wills. This point is crucial to answering the question Paul has been addressing: has God's word failed in that the vast minority of Jews have not embraced Christ? Paul's answer is that God's chosen people were not the physical descendants of Abraham but those whom God has sovereignly chosen. Within the political nation of Israel there was a faithful remnant that God had chosen (cf. Rom. 11:1-4). Those who placed their faith in Christ when he came were the chosen remnant within Israel herself. Hence Paul is able to make sense of the large-scale rejection of Jesus by national Israel. Most of the Jews did not believe because most of them were not God's chosen people.

Thus we have seen that Romans 9 does address the issue of God's unconditional election. But it must be said that the reality of human responsibility is also present and crucial to the argument of Rom. 9-11, particularly 9:30-32 and 11:11-24. Let me say again, human responsibility does not logically coalesce in our minds with the issue of God's sovereign election. However we formulate God's election, we must not destroy the reality that people are responsible creatures who make significant decisions for which they will be judged. The two must be held together in tension. Emphasis on only one will distort the Biblical balance.

By now we have a taste for Mr. Michael's uncontrolled use of the OT and it would be tedious to follow the rest of his reading of Romans 9. It is now time to draw some conclusions.

Conclusions

Here are some conclusions from Mr. Michael:

Rather, too many modern-day Evangelicals have fallen into the exact Jewish mindset that St. Paul is trying to correct in these verses, namely, that the gospel is the good news of health, wealth, and prosperity. There is hardly an Evangelical church around in our age that proclaims the truths which St. Paul expresses here: true Christians are expected to suffer in union with Christ, and to be perfected through suffering just as Christ was, so that they may obtain eternal glory just as Christ did.

This, once again, is a remarkable misrepresentation of the Evangelical tradition within Protestantism. Firstly, Mr. Michael functions with a definition of Evangelical that is not true to its historic meaning. A person who preaches a "gospel [evangel] of health, wealth, and prosperity" is not being faithful to the evangel [gospel] of traditional Evangelicalism; they have left the historic ambit of what it means to be Evangelical. Suffering for Christ was a key theme in the historic Evangelicalism of Martin Luther's "theology of the cross", John Wesley's share of beatings in his open-air preaching, William Carey's painful missionary exploits, Charles Spurgeon's bouts of depression, and countless other evangelicals experience of suffering for Christ.

Secondly, the claim that there "is hardly an Evangelical church around in our age" that proclaims that "true Christians are expected to suffer in union with Christ" is gratuitous to say the least. Why is Mr. Michael's experience of Evangelicalism (which he misunderstands) a norm that enables him to make that sort of general judgment? I could recount my own (limited) experience that is radically different. Why unnecessarily throw stones like this at evangelicals? One could quite easily throw them back at Mr. Michael given the state of his beloved Roman Catholic Church around the world at present. But to do so blurs the issues and produces more heat than light.

What can we say in conclusion? Firstly, we have observed Mr. Michael's uncontrolled biblical interpretation. It is precisely this sort of methodology (or lack thereof) that enables the Roman Catholic to produce the doctrines they do from the Bible. But it leaves the plain reading of the words of Scripture. No wonder Roman Catholics keep telling us the Bible is obscure! It is also for this reason that very often the Roman Catholic and the Protestant cannot understand how the other gets what they do from the Biblical text. What I have attempted to do is show the fallacious methodology of Roman Catholic hermeneutics.

Secondly, Mr. Michael has not at all rescued Romans from the Reformers because he has grossly misrepresented reformation theology. This raises the issue of why he erects a straw man. I will not impute sour motives to him, so I conclude that he is genuinely unaware of key aspects of reformation theology. The question, then, naturally arises: how Protestant was Mr. Michael before his conversion to Rome?

Because of his caricature of the Protestant position, all his article will do is firstly, let Protestants see the ignorance of the tradition he criticizes, and secondly, cause Catholics to be prejudiced about Protestants and the reformers. This is hardly a win-win situation.

Martin Foord
Lecturer in Systematic and Historical Theology
Trinity Theological College
Perth, Australia
martin@trinity.org.au